title (fwd)

Once upon a time Carl Morris shaped the electrons to say...
>HTML is always stating that <TITLE> is required.  I honestly see no
>reason why, it doesn't always have a meaningful purpose, but the main
>arguement is that HTML also describes that <HTML> and <HEAD> are not
>required...  If I take this right though, a proper implementation must
>only accept <TITLE> inside <HEAD> and then must only accept <HEAD>
>inside <HTML>...  what is it that allows <TITLE> to be a requirement
>but the others not?  Does the use of <TITLE> also bring in the

Because the others are assumed from content.

so:

<TITLE>title</TITLE>
<P>text</P>

is perfectly valid.  The TITLE implies it is in the HEAD and that implies
the entire thing is in an HTML container.  <P> implies the start of BODY.

<P>text</P>
<TITLE>title</TITLE>

is *NOT* valid as the <P> starts by implying the BODY - which causes a problem
as that implies no head, which implies no TITLE - which is required.  And
then there is another problem, assuming it gets by the <P> bit it then 
encounters <TITLE> which implies HEAD - which must come *before* BODY - which
was implied by <P>/

>assumption of the <HEAD> and <HTML> tags?  If so, would it be incorrect
>to place <TITLE> at the end of a document?  I do not see such a

Yes it is incorrect.

>requirement made in the HTML specification...  Is it this same kind of

It is there, the DTD requires this if you read it.

-MZ
--
Livingston Enterprises - Chair, Department of Interstitial Affairs
Phone: 800-458-9966 510-426-0770 FAX: 510-426-8951 megazone@livingston.com
For support requests: support@livingston.com  <http://www.livingston.com/> 
Snail mail: 6920 Koll Center Parkway  #220, Pleasanton, CA 94566
See me in person: Internet Expo, Boston, MA, October 16-17, Booth 422 ;-)

Received on Sunday, 22 September 1996 04:27:11 UTC